Opposable Thumbs —

ESRB simplifies ratings process for downloadable games

Ratings org. will use developer questionnaire to deal with high volume.

The Entertainment Software Ratings Board's standard rating process involves issuing content guidance to consumers based on viewing a DVD of representative gameplay. But with thousands of games being submitted to participating digital storefronts—including the upcoming Windows 8 Store, Steam, console download services, and the new PlayStation Mobile marketplace—the ratings organization found its standard process couldn't handle the load. So now, the organization will assign a free rating to downloadable games based on a questionnaire filled out by the developer that describes the game's content.

"Due to the volume of digitally delivered games and the speed and frequency with which they’re produced, we recognize the need to utilize a process that is scalable and fast but still highly reliable," ESRB Director of Communications Eliot Mizrahi told Ars. "Our goal is for this service to facilitate broader adoption of our ratings so consumers are presented with consistent rating information regardless of where their family plays."

The ESRB has been testing this kind of questionnaire-based rating system for downloadable games since last year. Today's announcement expands the program and removes the fee for using the service, which should help ease the burden on smaller indie developers with limited funds. The new process is also more streamlined, no longer requiring developers to send in physical follow-up materials like a gameplay DVD, and lets a rating follow a game automatically as it's ported to new platforms.

Downloadable games will also now get special content descriptors indicating when they share personal information or location data with third parties, and when users could be exposed to inappropriate content from other users. The companies in control of these digital storefronts will be able to add parental controls that automatically block access to games with any of these features, though no platform is currently equipped to do so.

Of course, trusting developers to describe their own games accurately leaves the system open to potential abuse by unscrupulous parties. But the ESRB says this hasn't been a major issue thus far. "Our initial testing has shown that the automated form generates the same rating category as our raters in the vast majority of instances," Mizrahi said. "In those cases where the form generated a different rating, most of the time that rating was more restrictive than the one our raters would have assigned."

Still, the ESRB will do follow-up tests on a number of titles to ensure the self-service ratings process is working properly, and force ratings changes as it sees fit. There will be an appeals process in place if a developer feels its game has been mis-rated, but developers that routinely misuse the rating process could have their rating privileges completely revoked, which could limit their games' availability, Mizrahi said.

Late last year, the ESRB used a similar questionnaire to expand its ratings system to a number of mobile phone app stores through a partnership with the CTIA. However, the ESRB system has not yet been adopted by either Google Play or Apple's iTunes Marketplace, which both use their own self-assigned ratings systems for apps.

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

29 Reader Comments

"Our game contains strong female positive characters depicted as competent warriors and battlefield commanders. The fact that they are wearing what looks like chainmail lingerie is purely an artistic choice."

Quote:

could have their rating privileges completely revoked, which could limit their games' availability,

Or... "See the game banned by the ESRB! Download Custer's Revenge 2012 today!"

Quality is what reviews are supposed to be for. The ESRB kind of works for what it's supposed to do.

Maybe we should have a ratings board for journalists/reviewers though, and rate the people who rate games.Then the people who give high scores to basically any AAA title regardless of actual quality can be filtered out.

Quality is what reviews are supposed to be for. The ESRB kind of works for what it's supposed to do.

Maybe we should have a ratings board for journalists/reviewers though, and rate the people who rate games.Then the people who give high scores to basically any AAA title regardless of actual quality can be filtered out.

Seems like most game reviews these days. How many AAA titles have you seen get poor reviews by the mainstream reviewers?

"Our game contains strong female positive characters depicted as competent warriors and battlefield commanders. The fact that they are wearing what looks like chainmail lingerie is purely an artistic choice."

Quote:

could have their rating privileges completely revoked, which could limit their games' availability,

Or... "See the game banned by the ESRB! Download Custer's Revenge 2012 today!"

ESRB doesn't ban games. They just assign the "Adult Only" descriptor to them which for many markets is a kiss of death because many store fronts won't carry AO games.

I think of that, and just have to ask myself, "Wouldn't that pinch?" (shudder)

Not to get too far off topic, and not to draw too traumatizing pictures, but speaking as a hairy man with personal experience, well-fitting chainmail with good closures pinches bare skin (and hair) very little.

I think of that, and just have to ask myself, "Wouldn't that pinch?" (shudder)

Not to get too far off topic, and not to draw too traumatizing pictures, but speaking as a hairy man with personal experience, well-fitting chainmail with good closures pinches bare skin (and hair) very little.

That's good to know in a... pinch, but I'm pretty sure you're supposed to wear something between the skin and mail.

I think of that, and just have to ask myself, "Wouldn't that pinch?" (shudder)

Not to get too far off topic, and not to draw too traumatizing pictures, but speaking as a hairy man with personal experience, well-fitting chainmail with good closures pinches bare skin (and hair) very little.

That's good to know in a... pinch, but I'm pretty sure you're supposed to wear something between the skin and mail.

This is basically the only chance the ESRB has to survive. People who make downloadable games have no reason to need an ESRB rating so unless they're unbelievably easy to get the entire ESRB could soon find themselves a pointless anachronism that no one uses.

As a parent and gamer, I buy things for myself without looking at the rating, and I buy things for my daughter only if the company has it's own strict guidlines, or if I have first hand experience with the piece of entertainment in question. The ESRB is probably helpful for people who have no time to personally review things for their kids, and that's good; but I'm concerned with them tilting toward TV and movie ratings systems that are skewed in favor of large American based businesses over independents and imports.

What's the deal w/ the ESRB anyway? Is it a legal mandate that games have to be rated or just "good practice?" Can it be done away with just like the Comics Code Authority?

The ESRB is not a legal mandate. It was put in place by the gaming community to PREVENT legal mandates. I actually approve of the ESRB because it doesn't fall under the government's purview. I'd rather it stay as it's own entity, because the last thing I want is government control over games (or art in general actually).

As for the article though, my thought would be that the ESRB should have it be mandatory for the developer and at least one other outside source (Steam, Microsoft, etc) fill out copies of the questionnaire in order to be rated. I know that's pretty much an impossibility, but I think it might help cut down on unscrupulous game developers releasing adult-only rated material as T for teen based on their responses to the questionnaire.

What's the deal w/ the ESRB anyway? Is it a legal mandate that games have to be rated or just "good practice?" Can it be done away with just like the Comics Code Authority?

The ESRB is not a legal mandate. It was put in place by the gaming community to PREVENT legal mandates. I actually approve of the ESRB because it doesn't fall under the government's purview. I'd rather it stay as it's own entity, because the last thing I want is government control over games (or art in general actually).

Today's announcement expands the program and removes the fee for using the service, which should help ease the burden on smaller indie developers with limited funds

Potentially not just smaller developers, either. Depending on the older cost of the process, it could remove one barrier to Nintendo releasing more virtual console games: having to spend money to rate games that didn't have a rating before. Any amount of money less to recoup means that fringe titles are that much less of a risk.

Today's announcement expands the program and removes the fee for using the service, which should help ease the burden on smaller indie developers with limited funds

Potentially not just smaller developers, either. Depending on the older cost of the process, it could remove one barrier to Nintendo releasing more virtual console games: having to spend money to rate games that didn't have a rating before. Any amount of money less to recoup means that fringe titles are that much less of a risk.

When will America will grow out of its "oh no! boobies!" phase?The ESRB should go, but not in favour of another government/special interest group committee.Much like we waved goodbye to the Comics Code Authority, so this should go.

Speaking of which, the "MPAA film rating system" should also go (all aside from the whole "MPAA should go" argument - but this is not the place), for much the same reasons listed in the WIKI.

I really don't get the comparison between the CCA and ERSB. The ERSB merely rates games (you know, the R part of the name), whereas the CCA forced most of the entire comic book industry to adopt plainly idiotic 'rules' to protect teh childz.

That's actually funny, because the first section under the heading you linked practically negates itself all the way throughout. "However, the Japanese culture does tolerate violence in video games more than the Americans and Europeans." "Note that many video games have content, such as blood in this case,censored out for the European audience," "So at many times, PEGI has rated games higher than the ESRB." (Right now it's a rambling mess as it is anyway and really needs to be rewritten.)

The second section is about how "the ESRB has often been accused of not rating games harshly enough for violence and other related themes."